Medina v. Johnstone

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

September 7, 2017

CHRISTIAN MEDINAv.BENJAMIN JOHNSTONE

SECTION:
“G” (5)

ORDER

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This
litigation arises out of Plaintiff Christian Medina's
(“Plaintiff”) claim for damages allegedly
sustained when an automobile collision occurred between him
and motorist Benjamin Johnstone
(“Johnstone”).[1] Plaintiff originally filed this action
in the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Tangipahoa on May 10, 2017.[2] On June 29, 2017, Defendants
Johnstone and RLI Insurance Company (“RLI”)
(collectively, “Defendants”) removed the case to
this Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332.[3] Upon review of this matter, it came to the
Court's attention that the Court may not have subject
matter jurisdiction over this matter. Even though Plaintiff
has not filed a motion to remand, “federal courts are
duty-bound to examine the basis of subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte.”[4] The Court must
remand the case to state court “[i]f at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.”[5]

On July
7, 2017, the Court ordered Defendants to submit
summary-judgment-type evidence regarding the amount in
controversy at the time of removal of this case for the
purpose of establishing subject matter
jurisdiction.[6] On July 14, 2017, Defendants filed a
memorandum as to the jurisdictional amount.[7] For the reasons
that follow, the Court finds that Defendants have not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy at the time of removal exceeded $75,
000. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the above-captioned matter and hereby remands it to
state court.

I.
Background

In the
petition for damages, Plaintiff alleges that on May 12, 2016,
he was traveling in a vehicle heading east on I-12, when
Johnstone allegedly changed lanes and struck the right side
of Plaintiff's vehicle causing him to travel off the road
and into traffic cables.[8] Plaintiff alleges that the incident was
caused by the negligence of Johnstone, and as a result,
plaintiff claims that he suffered the following damages: pain
and suffering; medical expenses; loss of wages; and property
damages.[9] According to Plaintiff, Johnstone had an
insurance policy in effect provided by RLI, rendering RLI
equally liable.[10]

In the
notice of removal, Defendants aver that they received
Plaintiff's healthcare records from Plaintiff on or about
June 2, 2017.[11] Defendants aver that the records include
a report from Dr. Jackson Hatfield diagnosing Plaintiff with
ulnar neuropathy of the left upper extremity and referring
him to Dr. Ronald French.[12] Defendants further aver that
the records also include a report from Dr. French confirming
the diagnosis and referencing a nerve conduction study that
confirmed a severe cubital tunnel syndrome at the left
elbow.[13] Defendants further aver that the records
include a report from Dr. French evidencing the
administration of a left elbow subcutaneous ulnar nerve
transposition surgery at Ochsner Medical
Center.[14] Last, Defendants aver that the records
include multiple reports from Dr. French showing continued
effects and rehabilitation following the July 2016 surgery
through at least January 2017.[15]

Based
on the healthcare records Defendants received from Plaintiff,
Defendants describe Plaintiff's symptoms as a result of
the incident, in addition to the medical treatment received,
in the memorandum regarding jurisdictional amount. First,
according to Plaintiff's healthcare records, Defendants
aver, Plaintiff began experiencing numbness in his fingers
four days after an 18-wheeler collided with his car, the
incident at issue.[16] Defendants further aver that Plaintiff
received medical treatment from Dr. Hartfield and Dr. French,
and continued to have clawing present in his left hand,
paresthesia, and atrophy for at least six months after the
nerve transposition on July 15, 2016.[17] According to
Defendant, Plaintiff's medical costs total $18, 215.23.

II.
Parties' Arguments

A.
Defendants' Notice of Removal

In the
notice of removal, Defendants explain that although Louisiana
Code of Civil Procedure Article 893 prohibits the pleading of
monetary damages in a specific amount, it also requires that
“if a specific amount of damages is necessary to
establish the jurisdiction of the court, the right to a jury
trial, the lack of jurisdiction of federal courts due to
insufficiency of damages, or for other purposes, a general
allegation that the claim exceeds or is less than the
requisite amount is required.”[18] Defendants aver that
Plaintiff did not make the requisite allegation in the
petition for damages.[19]

Defendants
aver that Plaintiff's medical expenses incurred thus far
total at least $18, 215.23.[20] Defendants cite four Louisiana
state court cases to demonstrate that “Louisiana courts
have held that in cases with similar types of injuries
alleged by Plaintiff . . . the damages may exceed $75,
000.”[21] Accordingly, Defendants argue, they are
entitled to remove this case to this Court.[22]

B.
Defendants' Memorandum Regarding the Amount in
Controversy

In the
memorandum regarding amount in controversy, Defendants argue
that “the amount in controversy requirement is clearly
satisfied . . . by Plaintiff's refusal to stipulate that
his damages were less than the jurisdictional minimum, the
allegations in [the petition for damages], and the various
medical records” produced by Plaintiff.[23]

Based
on healthcare records Defendants received from Plaintiff,
Defendants describe the nature of Plaintiff's injuries
and calculate that “Plaintiff's medical specials to
date total $18, 215.23.”[24] According to Defendants,
Plaintiff began experiencing numbness in his fingers four
days after the incident at issue.[25] Defendants further aver
that Plaintiff received medical treatment from Dr. Hartfield
and Dr. French, and continued to have clawing present in his
left hand, paresthesia, and atrophy for at least six months
after the nerve transposition on July 15, 2016.[26]

Defendants
aver that after receiving Plaintiff's medical records,
Defendants requested that Plaintiff sign a stipulation
indicating that the amount of damages in this case did not
exceed $75, 000, and Plaintiff refused.[27]
Plaintiff's refusal to stipulate, Defendants argue,
evidences that Plaintiff clearly believes his claims exceed
$75, 000.[28] Defendants then cite the same four
Louisiana state court cases cited in the notice of removal as
support for the proposition that “[t]he jurisprudence .
. . is replete with awards that far exceed $75, 000 for
damages such as those claimed by Plaintiff in this
case.”[29]

III.
Law and Analysis

A.
Legal Standard

A
defendant may remove a state civil court action to federal
court if the federal court has original jurisdiction over the
action.[30] A federal court has subject matter
jurisdiction over an action “where the matter for
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000” and
the action “is between citizens of different
states.”[31] “When removal is based on
diversity of citizenship, the diversity must exist at the
time of the removal.”[32] The removing party bears the
burden of demonstrating that federal jurisdiction
exists.[33] In assessing whether removal was
appropriate, the Court is guided by the principle, grounded
in notions of comity and the recognition that federal courts
are courts of limited jurisdiction, that “removal
statute[s] should be strictly construed in favor of
remand.”[34]Remand is appropriate if the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, and “doubts regarding
whether removal jurisdiction is proper should be resolved
against federal jurisdiction.”[35]

Pursuant
to Fifth Circuit precedent, a removing defendant's burden
of showing that the amount in controversy is sufficient to
support federal jurisdiction differs depending on whether the
plaintiff's complaint alleges a specific amount of
monetary damages.[36] When the plaintiff alleges a figure in
excess of the required amount in controversy, “that
amount controls if made in good faith.”[37] If the
plaintiff pleads less than the jurisdictional amount, this
figure will also generally control, barring
removal.[38]

However,
Louisiana law ordinarily does not allow a plaintiff to plead
a specific amount of damages.[39] When, as here, the plaintiff
has alleged an indeterminate amount of damages, the Fifth
Circuit requires the removing defendant to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75, 000.[40] A defendant satisfies this burden
either: “(1) by demonstrating that it is facially
apparent that the claims are likely above $75, 000, or (2) by
setting forth facts in controversy-preferably in the removal
petition, but sometimes by affidavit-that support a finding
of the requisite amount.”[41] The defendant must do
more than point to a state law that might allow the plaintiff
to recover more than the jurisdictional minimum; the
defendant must submit evidence that establishes that the
actual amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.[42]

B.
Analysis

Defendants
argue that the amount in controversy amount is met because it
is facially apparent that Plaintiff's damages exceed $75,
000 based on Plaintiff's refusal to stipulate that his
damages were less than the jurisdictional amount, the
allegations in the petition for damages, and the various
medical records Plaintiff produced, including bills for
medical expenses incurred thus far totaling $18,
215.23.[43] In order to show that the requisite
jurisdictional amount is met, Defendants must (1) demonstrate
that it is facially apparent that the claims are likely above
$75, 000, or (2) set forth facts in controversy that support
a finding of the requisite amount.[44]However, the Court has
already found that it is not facially apparent that
Plaintiff's injuries exceed $75, 000.[45] Accordingly,
Defendants must set forth facts in controversy that support a
finding of the requisite amount.

In the
July 7, 2017 Order, the Court indicated that Defendants'
evidence that Plaintiff has incurred $18, 215.23 in medical
expenses is insufficient to establish that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000, and Defendants do not provide
specifics in the notice of removal as to any other damages
alleged by Plaintiff that would establish that the amount in
controversy is met. In the memorandum regarding amount in
controversy, Defendants fail to set forth any additional
facts that would establish that the amount in controversy is
met. Defendants merely describe Plaintiff's resulting
injuries and medical costs ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.